...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...

Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Use of terms like tard indicate a shut-down mentality on the part of those flinging the word about. They may pay lip service to the notion that Telic Thoughts is a reasonable place for discourse but true intent is revealed by the remarks of Raevmo and Zachriel. You can't have reasoned exchanges while having to tolerate the trash talk of swamp denizens.

...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...

This completely ignores all the Lolcats here.

Quote

Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

So, in much the same way as a tree falling in a forest makes noise no matter what, Tard is still Tard whether or not we're here to catalog it and laugh at Joy?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!

None of this really matters. Joy's true classic -- the one that posterity will remember her for -- is claiming that she understands what holocaust denial is better than Jews do.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

Great! now tell us what them Negros do, Mike.

Here's the new scientism TARD test

rate each criteria from 1 to 5, add the scores, then declare TARD anyway.

The bible. Do they bash it? Bash it real good with their sandals on?

Assclownery. Are they? Do they make a proper Bradford of themselves?

Reality averse. Do they abhor facts and research?

Doesn't work in Biology. That's rubbish for understanding Biology. You need an engineer for that.

This will all be in my book which I will be shamelessly touting on my heavily moderated blog.

FINALLY CHATTERBOX, YOU POST SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. I KNEW RO'B WOULD RUB OFF ON YOU. YOU KEEP HANGING AROUND IN HIM AND YOU'LL BE FINE!

Ewwwww. That is just a little graphic, don't you think? I mean, Arden and RO'B are welcome to do whatever they want to each other, but I really don't need the visual imagery.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Behold a marvel of hypocrisy and rationalization. Bradford explains why name-calling is wrong, except when he does it:

Quote (Bradford @ May 20 2008,5:54)

Quote (Raevmo @ May 20 2008,5:48)

You are a hypocrite since you routinely engage in name-calling and various ad-homs. Fine by me, but don't deny it.

Let me do some more name calling then. The quote is worth repeating as it is so applicable.

Quote (Mike Gene @ May 20 2008, 5:12)

Look, I suppose I can somewhat understand the appeal of ridiculing another as a ‘tard,’ especially when it is part of herd behavior. It’s the type of insult many of us remember from 7th and 8th grade. It appeals to our immature and primitive tribalistic instincts, as the label helps to denigrate the outgroup while at the same time creating a sense of camaraderie and superiority among the herd.

Note the difference in our name calling. You frequently label others and have used choice words like stupid, dishonest, hypocrite… As Harry Truman once said (paraphrasing) and this applies to you:

...AtBC is a place where there are not just 8 pages devoted to calling us names, but 945 pages of the same old same for UD, another 19 pages of posts deleted from UD, 244 pages devoted to slamming a single poster from Kansas and 5 pages of "Top Tard Quotes" that makes no bones about what "Tard" really means. ...

Emphasis mine. I think I've found the issue. As we catalogue the views of the cdesign proponentists in The Argument Regarding Design, they say some not very bright things. This is where Joy is getting confused. They were stupid before we copied them. That other 'Tard' you seem to think exists, well if they had it..they did it to themselves.

Oh, Joy, You are like the queen Tard or something.

There's one thing that can shut us up: them getting results.

Real scientific revolutions solve problems. They figure new things out. They force the scientific community to jump on the bandwagon or get left behind. They do hard work and they get results. ID doesn't get results. IDers just sit around babbling to each other. Real scientific revolutions don't consist of the internet babblings of nitwits like Bradford and Salvador, or propaganda movies, they consist of a few beleaguered scientists overcoming the objections of their peers by getting shit done.

As long as ID continues to be a clown show, as long as it continues to be a collection of ridiculous people promoting stupid misunderstandings of science, and not actually doing any new science with an ID hypothesis, we will continue to make fun of it.

I’ll take you at your word, but that would be very surprising. My extensive experience with ID critics has taught me the vast majority do indeed paint with a broad brush. After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

But ID is nonsense. There's no there there. How are we supposed to be apologetic for understanding reality?

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

They do hard work and they get results. ID doesn't get results. IDers just sit around babbling to each other.

How unfair! That's not all they do. Robert Marks, for example, stays up late on campus making little cartoons in Photoshop.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Mike Gene really needs to ponder why scientists think ID is unproductive nonsense. There's a real easy insight he should be having about that. Until he does, I'm afraid people are indeed going to assume those things about him.

Maybe Mike could go to a university library and create two stacks. One stack would be all the publications in evolutionary journals so far this calendar year. The other stack could be all the publications in the ID journal so far this calendar year, which is to say, a blank spot on the desk. Then maybe he could stare, back and forth, for a few hours if need be, and see if anything springs to mind...

Bradford Says: May 20th, 2008 at 12:24 pm | Here are some definitions of tard from the urban dictionary.

1. tard: Adjective used to describe one so retarded, they do not deserve the 're'

2. tard: Any person who is not developmentally disabled, but rather has what is considered normal cognitive faculties but for whatever reason has opted out of using it. Whereas mental retardation is genetic in nature, this form of behavior is environmental usually resulting in too much daytime television, Brittany Spears piped in pop music, and other environmental factors.

My own view is that its useage constitutes a bannable offense. Let those so inclined use it in the swamps.

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts. In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet. He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised. Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway). But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true. Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?

I only know about this forum via the link on the "Apology Thread" thread in question on Telic Thoughts. In fact I just joined here a few minutes ago.

"anon9" is most certainly not my sock puppet. He seems to be merely a rabble-rouser having some fun: that thread has 119 posts and counting.

I must say I am surprised. Anyone with access to the server logs would immediately be able to confirm that "anon9" is not a sock puppet (of me, anyway). But it would appear that everyone assumed it, whereupon it became true. Who would have thought that ID proponents would believe in something without evidence?

Hi JackT and welcome to the club. After much posturing, Mike Gene did answer your questions. His response boils down to this:

Quote

Q.: [Do you see yourself in 10 years] jiggling scientific articles until they vibrate to the tune of intelligent design?

A.: Probably, since the stack continues to grow. What’s so fascinating (to me, at least) is that all it takes is some gentle jiggling and the rabbit pokes his head out. This is because so much of molecular, cell, and evolutionary biology has become quite friendly (unintentionally so) to a teleological perspective and I expect this trend to continue. So why wouldn’t I maintain such an interest?

After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.

After all, since almost all ID critics think ID = Nonsense, they hold this stereotype that all ID proponents are either stupid or dishonest. That stereotype shapes their thinking and perceptions. Perhaps you are different.

I know quite a few IDC advocates who would fit into a "sincere but deluded" category, and I at least recognize the cognitive sway of confirmation bias.

That's probably not enough to get Mike Gene to stop yelling "Stereotyping!", though.

Mike's mistake is in thinking that stereotypes are by definition false.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

And this is no doubt what makes the "RM/NS" shorthand so popular among both IDers and DDs. The DDs like it (and teach it to everybody's children as the most instruction in biological evolution a huge majority of them ever receive) because it's catchy like a propaganda slogan, it's easy to impart, and it artificially supports their preference for selection as life's designer. IDers like it because it's so easily revealed to BE simplistic, dumbed-down pablum that looks a lot like ideological sloganeering, which leaves wide open the actual source and nature of biological evolution.

The deal is, it is known that biological evolution doesn't work exclusively or even primarily by RM/NS. It's not a good - or even adequate - description of what's going on. Obviously the pablum doesn't sell well to the public (or their children), since upwards of 60% don't believe it even after taking the requisite indoctrination and passing the test. The DD answer to that situation?

"Waaaaaa! You don't know enough to make that judgment!"

Which is darned lame. Of course they know enough to judge RM/NS insufficient for explanation - they were taught it on purpose, supposedly so they'd have enough knowledge to judge. When they DO judge, the truth comes out clearly - they were taught simplistic pablum that science knows very well to be insufficient! Tell me, aiguy… whose fault is that?

I'm just reading, don't care to enter into the arguments here. I simply note that you're pushing the pablum as if we're all 15-year old hormone-addled school children, when reality is that we are well beyond the RM/NS scam and have been for a long time. It's just a little bit insulting when you resort to this smokescreen when objects to your definitional distractions, that's all.

I might add that Zachriel is taking it a bit too far, though I agree with the gist of his argument.

In freshman physics we solve problems about planets moving in (gasp!) circular orbits. We teach Amontons' laws of friction even though duct tapes and post-it notes violate both the 1st and 2nd of those. There are no material points and ideal gases in Nature, etc. etc.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus